Supreme Court "candidates who are truly liberals aren’t really on the table"

[G_j]

http://thinkprogress.org/author/Think%20Progress/

Bloomberg reports that the President Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees “are relative moderates.” Supreme Court appellate lawyer Tom Goldstein notes, “The candidates who are truly liberals aren’t really on the table.” By contrast, President Bush rewarded die-hard conservatives with two selections from their wish list.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aKkGcLT5tGVI

Obama Shuns the Left as White House Mulls U.S. High Court Slot

By Greg Stohr

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Justice John Paul Stevens’s retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court may remind progressive legal groups that reshaping the judiciary ranks low on President Barack Obama’s priority list.

As Obama considers his choice for a successor, such groups as the Alliance for Justice and the American Constitution Society, which back broad protection of individual rights, likely will wield far less influence than their conservative counterparts did under President George W. Bush.

The leading prospects -- U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood -- are relative moderates. Kagan has backed strong presidential authority over national security; rulings by Garland and Wood suggest they would expand rights only gradually.

“The candidates who are truly liberals aren’t really on the table,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington appellate lawyer whose Scotusblog Web site tracks the court. “You can just tell that it’s not where the White House is headed, and the groups themselves seemingly accept it.”

[NJmaverick]

1. There are 10 people on the list, not the 3 cherry picked to fit a dubious claim

[ThomWV]

2. Shit, there is no one on any list, the choice was made the moment of the last confirmation

Obama knows who he wants, its his second pick from the last time he chose.

[NJmaverick]

3. and who is his choice?

[BeyondGeography]

4. Was Stevens a "true liberal" when he was nominated by Ford? Souter?

History suggests that people should probably pace themselves on this. But that wouldn't fit the "Obama is a corpocrat" meme that the perpetually miserable have embraced.

[Deep13]

10. No, and that's part of the problem.

There hasn't been a liberal on the court since Marshal left.

[mucifer]

5. Obama is NOT a liberal. However, he is much better than mccain

Imagine who he would put on the court.

I would be shocked if President Obama put a liberal on the supreme court.

[KharmaTrain]

6. I Prefer An Honest Jurist...

That's what John Paul Stevens and David Souter were. Remember, they were nominated by rushpublicans...and they won confirmation due to their lack of any real ideology. They were both considered "moderates" and once on the bench their jurisprudence led them to rule in a more "liberal" fashion...especially as the court was pushed right by Scalia. There is no need to hold a big political litmus test on a nominee, I'm more concerned with their judicial background...writings and rulings. The key is the temperment...the ability to read the law in an objective fashion...not through a political filter. If the President selects another Justice (like Sotomayor) who has this type of perspective, our nation will be well served.

[FSogol]

18. Same here. Truth and justice both have a liberal bias. n/t

[pinto]

28. Good points.

:thumbsup:

[Mari333]

7. the corporate powers who run the Throne in DC have their way yet again

they always will.

[cali]

11. that's just absurd. They most certainly did not get their way

with Sotomayor who before being appointed was one of the few Jurists to speak out against corporate personhood.

Making shit up isn't an argument.

[polichick]

8. It's true that Republicans carry out their wishes when elected...

Democrats are apologetic and carry Republican water - it's sickening.

I hope Obama surprises us with this pick.

[cali]

9. lol. it's a pretty good list. I've been doing some research on the folks on the short list

and the majority of them look like they'd be good replacements for Stevens.

[NJmaverick]

12. Thank you for providing a well researched point of view

[cutlassmama]

39. Yes they do. There will be a fight with the RW's on this.

[msongs]

13. what do you expect from a conservative democrat administration? nt

[amborin]

48. a republican- and conservative- approved appointment, of course

[BlueIris]

14. Wow, no liberals? What a shock.

Not.

[old mark]

15. I'd be happy if he picked someone who was not catholic and smart.

I was not unhappy with Sotomayor...


mark

[Tailormyst]

16. No surprise there.

Nothing liberal about this White House.

[Toasterlad]

17. Liberals Aren't Even In the Building

Obama has given strict orders that no liberal is allowed to be within 1000 yards of him.

[cali]

25. r idiculous. what do you think Liu is?

Hilda Solis?

He could certainly do a lot more about appointing liberals, but he's actually appointed quite a few. Those are not the only 2.

[flyarm]

19. no surprise..Obama has done nothing progressive or liberal..

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/johnsen/index.html


Friday, Apr 9, 2010 15:10 EDT
The death of Dawn Johnsen's nomination
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below - Update II)

After waiting 14 months for a confirmation vote that never came, Dawn Johnsen withdrew today as President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel. As I documented at length when the nomination was first announced in January, 2009, Johnsen was an absolutely superb pick to head an office that plays as vital a role as any in determining the President's record on civil liberties and adherence to the rule of law. With 59 and then 60 Democratic votes in the Senate all year long (which included the support of GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, though the opposition of Dem. Sen. Ben Nelson and shifting positions from Arlen Specter), it's difficult to understand why the White House -- if it really wanted to -- could not have had Johnsen confirmed (or why she at least wasn't included in the spate of recently announced recess appointments).

snip Per DU rules:


The question how we restore our nation's honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists. . . .

Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.


What Johnsen insists must not be done reads like a manual of what Barack Obama ended up doing and continues to do -- from supporting retroactive immunity to terminate FISA litigations to endless assertions of "state secrecy" in order to block courts from adjudicating Bush crimes to suppressing torture photos on the ground that "opennees will empower terrorists" to the overarching Obama dictate that we "simply move on." Could she have described any more perfectly what Obama would end up doing when she wrote, in March, 2008, what the next President "must not do"?

[xchrom]

20. +1

[Echo In Light]

21. k/r

[asdjrocky]

22. Of course not.

That would make Obama a liberal, and everyone here knows better.

[G_j]

23. although it is obvious that to even begin to restore a 'balance'

a moderate will not do it. Anyone less liberal than Stevens will tilt the court worse than it has been.

[asdjrocky]

24. Wasn't it Ford that nominated Stevens?

[G_j]

27. yes, and it is believed that Stevens was a Republican at the time

this also shows how far things have veered to the right.

[cali]

26. Did you know that Stevens was no liberal for the first 10 years of his tenure?

[kenny blankenship]

29. Did you know that Stevens was the replacement for William O. Douglas, the most liberal Justice

at the time of his retirement? So that Douglas' replacement, who was nominated by a Republican President, represented the most conservative replacement for a liberal Justice that the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress would tolerate? Did you know the subsequent collapse of the Democratic Party into impotence and appeasement allowed the Court to swing so far right that John Paul Stevens now appears to be the most liberal Justice?

You don't replace a liberal who replaced a liberal with a moderate conservative - not if you're a Democrat.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[G_j]

35. so you tell me,

will Obama be willing to bring on a knock-down bloody war in Congress, or will he attempt to find a middle ground?

[cali]

36. I think he knows he's in for a knock down drag out no matter who he names.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

40. "Anyone less liberal than Stevens will tilt the court worse than it has been."

Precisely.

Things have veered to the right and continue to veer even further right. It is unsustainable.

[VMI Dem]

30. As apologists are so fond of saying, he didn't promise liberal judges.

I believe he has said he favors moderate judges.

[kenny blankenship]

31. Moderate anything in the current climate means conservative, corporatist -friendly

and freedom -hostile.

FUCK THAT.

[cali]

33. what bullshit you're excreting dear.

and anyone with a brain cell or two to rub together, knows that even the most liberal appointee will be framed as moderate and mainstream. that's the way the game is played and that's the only way to play it.

[kenny blankenship]

34. I'm happy to report that I have more than one or two brain cells to rub together.

Sorry to hear about your... difficulties.

[DefenseLawyer]

44. Right, Clinton and Obama filled the court with liberals.

All of them except... all of them. That is not the way the game has been played in modern times. Clinton and Obama nominated center-right candidates framed as "consensus nominees" not "liberals framed as moderates". Bush nominated fair right loons framed as mainstream conservatives. There hasn't been a liberal nominated to the Court since Marshall. Really, Justice Stevens is only liberal when compared to the loons appointed by Reagan and Bush.

[Echo In Light]

37. +1 Double-plus un-good

[Individualist]

38. +1

[progressoid]

41. Color me shocked.

:sigh:

[bvar22]

42. "Moderate"......

That means "Almost Republican."
.
.
.
But we all knew this the day he "selected" Rahm as CoS and started naming the rest of his cabinet.


The DLC New Team
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[SpartanDem]

43. Yeah because Sotomayer was such rightwinger

[DefenseLawyer]

45. Her rulings could not be construed as liberal. Period.

On issues of the rights of the accused, limits on government power and limits on corporate power she has not shown herself to be liberal. That doesn't make her a rightwinger, but she's certainly center-right in those areas based upon her record.

[SpartanDem]

46. center right my ass

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...{imbuing} a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

This sure doesn't sound like that to me.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. You understand those were questions and comments during oral argument, right?

Such remarks are meaningless. Judges often ask questions and propose hypotheticals just to fuck with the litigants. They may or may not reflect how she would vote on a particular issue. As the story itself says, they may offer a hint. I'm talking about her actual record, the opinions she has authored.